They’re leaving

I spoke to a friend yesterday. [S]he is an economic migrant, probably would have been a refugee if they hadn’t found work, has been here for decades, is not a citizen of the European Union, in the delightful language of immigration law, they are an Alien, but they are married to someone who is i.e. a citizen of an EU member state ! [S]he said they’re going home i.e. to their spouse’s home;  they now feel unwelcome in the UK. What have we become? …

Groundrush

I have also thought about, researched and looked up the Labour Party’s rules as they pertain to emergency motions. I believe that delegate based GCs may not consider motions sponsored by delegates without the support of their nominating organisation. I have said why in a comment on my article, “Show me a motion”. I also believe that in a true emergency, such as recently when the Lewisham Deptford GC debated the Millwall CPO, it is necessary that individually drafted/submitted motions should be considered as emergencies. The Party and its membership are protected by the chair’s judgement and the affirmative vote required of Rule 15.I.H.i; which mandates that the chair rules the motion as a bone fide emergency and that this is confirmed by the meeting. Another reason for codifying the local rules. …

Ayes to the left

What the Labour Party does best, argue about rules! The purpose of meeting standing orders is to allow the meeting to express its will. It’s not a sailing race, they should not be weapons. This little note talks about how to vote and win votes in a Labour Party meeting, based on Chapter 15 of its rules.

Voting on business is by show of hands unless otherwise prescribed by the rules or requested by three members; the alternative is a written secret ballot. Elections & Selections must be by secret ballot. Oh! I didn’t know a secret ballot could be requisitioned by three members, I wonder if this rule can be applied to conference. This is covered in Rule C15.I.L.i, which does not explicitly state that motions are carried by simple majority but what it says about the circumstances of an equality of votes and casting votes strongly implies that the default position is that motions are carried if they receive more votes “for” than “against”.

Procedural motions are carried by a simple majority.  See rule 15.I.J.i. The rule lists procedural motions, “next business”, “that the vote be taken”, “adjournment” and “no confidence in the chair”. Additionally, votes to confirm motions as emergency motions are carried on a simple majority 15.I.H.i. Speakers can ask for an extension of their speech time limit, 15.I.I.ii this is granted on a simple majority.

Votes requiring a qualified majority.  Votes to extend the meeting require a ⅔ majority (of those present). Votes to challenge/overturn a Chair’s ruling require a ⅔ majority (of those present). Individual’s can be expelled from a meeting on the proposal of the chair requiring a ⅔ majority (of those present).

The exam question today is, can the agenda be re-ordered on a simple majority? The rules would seem to be silent if you consider the procedural motions to be an exclusive list.

Otherwise, motions are carried on a simple majority, I move that agenda item 6a be taken now.
. …

Kafkaesque

A return to the world of Kafka! Local campaigners are advertising government funding to subsidise superfast broadband rollout and asking local residents to register an interest at Hampshire County Council’s Superfast Broadband site. They don’t have my address, probably because of the same problems I had when trying to get a phone installed i.e. OpenReach’s database is wrong, and so my address is missing from the site. Furthermore they point at OpenReach’s site, which states that they are both accepting orders and yet not accepting orders. What!

I have complained to Hampshire County Council. I have other issues with BT so this will take the backburner. …

Foiled

I was rung by an ex-client, now living and working in Denmark, my heart jumped, not only is the opportunity exciting, but could this be a route to remain a citizen of the EU. It would be a long shot, the job would have to last a long time; it wouldn’t be easy even under current law but there’s no doubt that this won’t be possible; the Tories, in the shadow of UKIP will attempt to close these doors because they want to stop immigration despite the economic damage it will do, and they are happy to have the rest of the EU retaliate as it forces remain voters to remain in the UK. Not content with walking away from Europe themselves, they insist that we do too. The rest of the EU won’t want the old because they become a health care burden and between them both they’ll make moving even private pensions into Europe harder and harder, not to mention the drop in value of sterling which will get worse vs. the northern European economies. It brought back the anger I felt last June because it’s not just that they want to fuck up their own lives, they insist on doing so to mine; it’s the theft of my freedom that I find hardest to take.

  …

Fairness

I want to propose a change to Labour’s Rules to ensure that a due process is defined for any expulsions for “supporting” the wrong people. To me, the critical weaknesses of the current rule, apart from its potential for corrupt usage is the chilling effect that banning the support of “political organisations” will have and the lack of due process in evaluating if someone has actually “supported” a political organisation other than Labour. The rest of this article illustrates a possible change and asks advice whether to amend Rule 2.I.4.B or to delete it; I plan to take one of these options to the CLPD AGM to seek support. …

Basics

I can’t remember what brought this up; it may have been considering local government cuts. It was certainly raised in my mind during the Indy Ref., but financial autonomy for local government is not good enough. This is true at a UK borough level and also at an international level within the EU. Poorer places need more social expenditure and have a lower tax base (or lower addressable charitable income), if the social wage and decent care is to be offered and some of these things should be seen as a right, we need to practice an old truth,

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

It can be applied to communities as well as people. In the context of the EU, when the UK joined a Regional Fund was created which may now have morphed into the R&D budget, in the UK, Central Government has always given money to local authorities and these payments have always been politically biased. Some have also spoken recently of a Transfer Union, because social services and income transfers remain social goals but cannot be funded by locally fragmented economies It’s one reason why, between Scotland and the rest of the UK, there exists a quasi legal objective funding agreement.

Since these funding/subsidy agreements are not legally underwritten, they have become political tools to reinforce electoral power. It’s another reason why the UK needs an entrenched basic law. Paul Cotterill has argued that the “Localism Act” gives local authorities the ability to resist aspects of Brexit and the long term EU treaty commitment to “subsidiarity“ is also a potential legal route to establish the rights of local authorities to define their needs and collective remedies. It’s a shame that it looks like we’re leaving because there’s little doubt that Parliamentary Sovereignty is past its sell-by date, we need a basic law to guarantee citizen’s rights against the government and the only one we have is the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. …

Impartiality

John Bercow has got himself in trouble with Tories again by threatening to block Trump speaking in Westminster Hall and then noting that he voted to “Remain”. A bunch of Tories are racking up the pressure by talking of no-confidence  but

the job of the Speaker is not to be impartial between the Government and the Opposition, but to be the speaker for the Commons, against the Government.

Bercow’s pursuit and enthusiasm for this part of the job has earned him many friend on the backbenches from MPs of all colours and many enemies in the Tory Party from Government ministers and those that aspire to be so. He should see this one off. …

Consequences

I have just posted on the new Digital Economy Bill and it leaves me with two questions and final thought.

Since the law talks about risk of loss, can we argue that content over 14 years has no value as argued in “Forever minus a day!”, and that there is thus no risk of loss. Since the crime or culpable act is “making available”, and it’s recognised that a hyperlink does not “make available”, only the target publisher does that, surely non seeding bittorrent users are also not “making available” and neither is streaming consumption.

I considered putting a link to this register story, about automated justice but felt that the story I told, didn’t need the help, although it is relevant as their looking to make prosecution cheaper at the expense of fair. …